Rand must get some of his ideas from beyond the galaxy!
A few years ago I was in Amsterdam, where I struck up a
conversation with a young Dutchman named Hans. I enjoyed his animated
observations of peoples from around the globe and his razor-sharp political
analyses of world events. Out of the blue, Hans uttered this observation and
question: “In the Netherlands, we pass laws to control corporations, but we let
people do what they want. In the United States, it looks to me like you let
corporations do what they want, but you control the people. Is this correct
and, if so, can you explain to me why?” What more could I say beyond, “Yes, and no I can’t.” The Dutchman
nailed it.
I mused on this encounter recently when I was at the gym and
a friend asked me who got my vote for being the biggest disappointment in all
of American politics. Now that’s a loaded question! Where does one
even begin? American politics is filled with loathsome, inept, and deplorable
creatures. Look up the word “buttocks” and the first definition is Eric Cantor.
Harry Reid is a synonym for ‘sclerotic.’ Mitch McConnell is to the right of
Mussolini, David Vitter is dumber than gravel, Michele Bachmann escaped from
the asylum, Rick Scott is why the word “creep” was invented, Anton Scalia
represents the Vatican with such naked fervency he’s in danger of losing his
U.S. citizenship, and Clarence Thomas is rumored to be a fully owned subsidiary
of Scalia, Inc. Then there’s the American Svengali, Barack Obama, who has
mesmerized millions of liberals into believing he’s one of them without
actually having paid any attention to them whatsoever. But in the end, my vote goes to Rand
Paul. Not because the most corrupt, amoral, or dumbest politician in the land,
but because he fails the simplest task of all: he can’t even do nothing.
Before you jump on me for bad syntax, let me explain. Paul
calls himself a libertarian and says that government should stay the hell out
of people’s lives. That’s his main (only?) appeal. Lots of Americans hate
government, taxes, and regulations. Paul’s bad-boy libertarianism appeals to
the anarchist fantasies of so many Americans that even those smart enough to
know better–a smaller number than one might presume–occasionally find themselves
nodding in agreement. The problem is that Rand is the Wizard of Oz—all smoke
and mirrors. He doesn’t believe what he says; it’s just a ruse to trick people
into thinking he’s on their side. Has it escaped the feeble minds of Paul
supporters that the Great Libertarian Phony introduced a bill that would outlaw
all abortion and define life as beginning with conception? Or that he opposes
gay marriage? Or that the guy who says he wants the U.S. to stop giving foreign
aid and going to war faithfully votes for whatever military budget that is put
before him? Or that he’s against immigration reform because it doesn’t “secure”
U.S. borders? How hard is it to shut up and do nothing if you claim that’s what
government ought to do?
I suspect that Rand embodies the true spirit of American
libertarianism. That is to say, libertarianism as practiced is little more than
a temper tantrum, not a serious political ideology. Few self-proclaimed
libertarians actually believe much beyond wanting to have unrestricted access
to guns and tax dodges. What would
true libertarianism look like? Probably something like the Netherlands, except
with more guns. If you really don’t
think government has any right to interfere in people’s lives then every woman can
make up her own mind about abortion, drugs should be as legal as guns, sodomy
among consenting adults is nobody else’s business, government (state, federal
or local) should sanction the marriage of anyone who buys a license, prostitution would be legal, workers
seeking jobs should freely cross borders in search of them, and the First
Amendment ought to be interpreted broadly in matters of appropriate speech,
dress (or undress), film, print, web, and music content. True libertarianism would mean a society in which we stop trying to
“prevent” much of anything insofar as individuals are concerned, and one sanctions
only public harm, not private preferences. In essence, one can be as stoned or
drunk as one wishes, as long as one doesn’t go on to drive a car or rob a bank.
Rand Paul doesn’t believe this. I’m not sure I’m in favor of
all of this either, but I’ve never claimed the libertarian mantle and he has.
That makes me inconsistent, but it makes Rand Paul a charlatan and a hypocrite.
All hail Rand Paul–the worst politician in a land of political rogues. His old
man must be proud. Too bad Hans is Dutch; he’d be a candidate worth supporting.
No comments:
Post a Comment